Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[dleung]

A few assumptions:
-Both the ROC and Quebec lose economically in a divorce
-Quebecois rather be poor than anglo
-ROCers rather be bilingual than American

Question:
-Assuming Canada would ditch bilingualism in a split, can Quebec do the same (now without federal subsidies) and remain competitive in an increasingly English-dominated global economy? Is it the energy equivalent of propping up coal?

Originally Posted by hipster duck

You may have observed this too, but in Vancouver (and Toronto to a lesser extent), a lot of "white old-stock" professional Canadians of millennial age or younger have married Canadian-born Chinese partners who, thanks to Chinese familial practices, help them get on the property ladder and build wealth. Right now, the "ruling class" in BC is mostly white boomers that aren't stepping out of the limelight, but in 30-50 years I think you'll see that the people who run things will be an ethnically unique group of mixed Chinese-Europeans. It's kind of like how British aristocrats married the daughters of American millionaires in the late 19th century to keep the music going for a few more decades amidst huge macroeconomic changes.

Hope my boyfriend isn't doing that loool. His family's rich, but he's personally broke

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm not being enthusiastic. The Brazil-ification of Canada and a lot of the world frankly terrifies me.

I got that it wasn't an enthusiastic prediction.

We could always be Argentina too!

[Acajack]

Map of boil water advisories in Indigenous communities across Canada. Maybe there are hardly any in Quebec just because the feds are favouring Quebec by dumping more money here again!

https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1620925418298/1620925434679

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess you and I don't have the same reading of tea leaves.

What I see at the moment are two bills (21 - secularism, 95 - language) passed by a democratically-elected legislature in Quebec and supported by strong majorities within the population, being hotly contested by the ROC and also the ROC's allies within Quebec itself. There is also strong opposition to the use of the notwithstanding clause (s.33) of the Constitution that is a legitimate legal mechanism.

So Quebec is exercising its powers with the mechanisms already in place, and there is vocal and legal opposition to it doing so, even under the status quo.

Somehow I doubt that there is a level of trust and appetite in the ROC to let Quebec do its own thing even more with new powers, when lots of people probably think it should urgently be reined in as it stands now.

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't see anything offensive about either of those, assuming I understand them correctly...

21 - It's up to us to define what cultural/religious symbols civil servants display
95 (Did you mean 96?) - Further protections of French as the primary language within the province, capping of primarily-English school populations, etc.

To me... they're defensive moves, most definitely. And I'm sure they'll create some discomfort for minorities within the population but in both cases... will they achieve the desired result? I can't see how. They in no way would make Quebec more attractive as a place to immigrate to, either from outside Canada or from within. "Come to Quebec! Now With 7% More Quebec!"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

95 (Did you mean 96?) - :

Sorry, I meant 96.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sorry, I meant 96.

No worries. I'm edumacating myself in this thread and it feels good.



I thank you for your patience, as while I'm very non-political, I like understanding.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Maybe I'm weird, but I don't see anything offensive about either of those, assuming I understand them correctly...

21 - It's up to us to define what cultural/religious symbols civil servants display
95 (Did you mean 96?) - Further protections of French as the primary language within the province, capping of primarily-English school populations, etc.

To me... they're defensive moves, most definitely. And I'm sure they'll create some discomfort for minorities within the population but in both cases... will they achieve the desired result? I can't see how. They in no way would make Quebec more attractive as a place to immigrate to, either from outside Canada or from within. "Come to Quebec! Now With 7% More Quebec!"

I don't think immigration is viewed the same way in Quebec as it is in the ROC, and this sentence illustrates it well.

Here it's not really about bending over backwards and making XYZ compromises so that as many immigrants as possible want to move here. It's not a race for us.

Rightly or wrongly, the sentiment is more that the number of good people who'd want to move here is higher than how many we could feasibly let in, and as a result we can be selective and even more demanding in our expectations in terms of integration and "fitting in" in general.

The real question is: do we have to adapt to them, or is they who have to adapt to us?

(Recognizing that people more willing and eager to adapt to their new society at the outset, will arguably end up being happier in the long run, and more likely to stay.)

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't think immigration is viewed the same way in Quebec as it is in the ROC, and this sentence illustrates it well.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not expressing this in human terms, really... it's about marketability and long term sustainability.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here it's not really about bending over backwards and making XYZ compromises so that as many immigrants as possible want to move here. It's not a race for us.

Rightly or wrongly, the sentiment is more that the number of good people who'd want to move here is higher than how many we could feasibly let in, and as a result we can be selective and even more demanding in our expectations in terms of integration and "fitting in" in general. The real question is: do we have to adapt to them, or is they who have to adapt to us?

If that is indeed the case and you believe Quebec CAN still grow while admitting only those who are committed to uh... assimilating, then that's great. I'm a LITTLE worried about the juxtaposition of the two bills... if it is framed in terms of linguistic capability then great, that is defensible... but knowing how "people be people" and (your likely inadvertant) use of the term "fit" (eww)... I get a bit wary.

Originally Posted by Acajack

(Recognizing that people more willing and eager to adapt to their new society at the outset, will arguably end up being happier in the long run, and more likely to stay.)

Hey, if it works out that way, great. Again, I don't see any reason Quebec SHOULDN'T be able to determine (based on language profiiency, for example) who moves there. I think where we might disagree is to how that kind of policy might affect overall attractiveness of Quebec as an overall destination. By definition, you are limiting your options, and I can't see how that would increase Quebec as a target market. But hey, if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter really. The people you turn away might likely be ROC's gain.

It's like my (theoretical) vegan kid who decides she only wants to drink oat milk from now on instead of the other milks because she feels it's "healthier". Hey, go nuts, it's your body. I hope you can get oat milk wherever you go, but I wouldn't count on it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dleung

Question:
-Assuming Canada would ditch bilingualism in a split, can Quebec do the same (now without federal subsidies) and remain competitive in an increasingly English-dominated global economy? Is it the energy equivalent of propping up coal?

Canada would ditch bilingualism, but an independent Quebec would be a lot more welcoming of the global lingua franca / language of our friends and neighbors, the Yankees.

In linguistic tensions, it's always about the "invasive species", never about an irrational aversion to a lingua franca.

Witness for example how the people of Dilbeek are fine with English (the language of global trade), but not with French (the encroaching steamroller).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

A few assumptions:
-Both the ROC and Quebec lose economically in a divorce
-Quebecois rather be poor than anglo
-ROCers rather be bilingual than American

Amused by the assertion that ROCers are actually bilingual!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Amused by the assertion that ROCers are actually bilingual!

I believe hipster duck alluded to this already but one of the misunderstandings is that the Quebec requests do not necessarily align with the bilingualism initiatives promoted in other provinces, yet that stuff is perceived as living on the Quebec accommodation side of the ledger by a lot of people.

Another one I'd point out is that while I do agree that Quebec tends to be too cavalier about the economic implications of separation, Canada as a whole is quite out there right now when it comes to culture or even just the idea that a democratic nation may want to be this way or that way and has some say in its own future as well as responsibility to its citizens. And I think the root causes of that are quite bad; for example one is that political tribalism is so advanced that people don't really see politics as involving and supporting everybody in the society.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I should add that I'm not anti-Quebec and I'm concerned about the loss of French in Quebec, even if I'm not from there. I actually find that I enjoy traveling to Quebec outside Montreal a little more, since English is not a presence and I enjoy speaking French, as bad as my French is. It feels like a totally different country in a way that Montreal does not, and I know that the feeling is mutual when (if?) Quebeckers from outside Montreal visited here.

Given that we live in different worlds, I'm not against sovereignty, per se, from a cultural standpoint. I actually thought that official bilingualism was a bit of a hamfisted approach that speaks more to the values of a mandarin class of bureaucrats rather than to Francophone Quebecois - and I think it's unfortunate that a lot of English Canada conflates bilingualism with Quebecois values.

...

j

I would have said that official bilingualism (+ protection of language minorities) is a reflection of Canadian values.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

Don't get me wrong... I'm not expressing this in human terms, really... it's about marketability and long term sustainability.


If that is indeed the case and you believe Quebec CAN still grow while admitting only those who are committed to uh... assimilating, then that's great. I'm a LITTLE worried about the juxtaposition of the two bills... if it is framed in terms of linguistic capability then great, that is defensible... but knowing how "people be people" and (your likely inadvertant) use of the term "fit" (eww)... I get a bit wary.

Hey, if it works out that way, great. Again, I don't see any reason Quebec SHOULDN'T be able to determine (based on language profiiency, for example) who moves there. I think where we might disagree is to how that kind of policy might affect overall attractiveness of Quebec as an overall destination. By definition, you are limiting your options, and I can't see how that would increase Quebec as a target market. But hey, if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter really. The people you turn away might likely be ROC's gain.

It's like my (theoretical) vegan kid who decides she only wants to drink oat milk from now on instead of the other milks because she feels it's "healthier". Hey, go nuts, it's your body. I hope you can get oat milk wherever you go, but I wouldn't count on it.

Again, all of this is a classic ROC vs Quebec difference in perspective.

Having grown up in the ROC and gone to school in English much of my life, I am attuned to the ROC perspective, and to some degree even have it internalized. Well, it coexists in my mind with the Quebec one, and they kinda bounce off each other. Admittedly the Quebec one predominates, but I do get where the ROC is coming from, more than the vast majority of Québécois who'd probably think all of this is completely insane.

Just your reaction to "fitting in" is quite telling. What's wrong with expecting people to move to a place to try and integrate and fit in?

Why would one willingly move to a faraway place if the way of life there isn't appealling to you?

With 6 times more people living in developing countries as opposed to developed ones, why would developed countries be the ones on the begging side pleading for new citizens to move here?

BTW I happen to think that the short-lived era where most western countries were almost all competing ferociously with each other for immigrants has reached its peak, and would expect a number of countries - especially in Europe - to curtail their intake considerably over the next decade or two.

Finally, I don't see why Quebec wouldn't continue to grow under almost any immigration scenario.

It's expected that births will be lower than deaths in Quebec by around 2040, and by 2060 the difference will be around 15,000 (more deaths than births). Does anyone seriously believe that we couldn't find 4 or 5 times that many good immigrants a year who'd want to move to Quebec?

BTW between now and 2060, it is expected that the global francophone population could grow from 375 million today to 770 million. So there is even an excellent chance that we can find newcomers who can all speak French.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I believe hipster duck alluded to this already but one of the misunderstandings is that the Quebec requests do not necessarily align with the bilingualism initiatives promoted in other provinces, yet that stuff is perceived as living on the Quebec accommodation side of the ledger by a lot of people.
.

This reminds me of the people I'd overhear in my youth who would bitch about the opening of a francophone school in western Prince Edward Island as pandering to Quebec, whereas it was actually for the Acadien community that had lived there since the late 1700s and been deprived of education in their language for centuries.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Canada would ditch bilingualism, but an independent Quebec would be a lot more welcoming of the global lingua franca / language of our friends and neighbors, the Yankees.

In linguistic tensions, it's always about the "invasive species", never about an irrational aversion to a lingua franca.

Witness for example how the people of Dilbeek are fine with English (the language of global trade), but not with French (the encroaching steamroller).

Independent Quebec would likely be more wholly French internally, but as open if not more open to English in dealings with the outside world that uses English as its lingua franca.

The assertion you are responding to seems related to this myth that people have that Canada offers a bilingual "buffer" for Quebec and francophones in general.

When in reality there is no buffer. I need to speak English as soon as I cross the Ottawa River, even in a surprising number of cases if I am attending a francophone cultural event in Ottawa.

If a Québécois federal public servant or Quebec public servant goes to New York or anywhere else, they aren't going to magically get spoken to in French just because they have Canadian passports.

So I never got this "buffer" myth, though it's a good one as it's lasted for a long time,

[lio45]

Those "typical RoC" views you're reporting are frankly weird. It's obvious to everyone here in Quebec that what membership in Canada offers is a linguistic threat, not a buffer.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nashe

By definition, you are limiting your options, and I can't see how that would increase Quebec as a target market. But hey, if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter really. The people you turn away might likely be ROC's gain.

There's an approximately infinite pool of people interested in moving to Quebec/Canada/USA. The yearly intakes are what we decide: we let in as many as we think is a good idea to let in, and we draw the line there. So a decrease in attractiveness doesn't matter: supply and demand still work totally in our favor.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

BTW I happen to think that the short-lived era where most western countries were almost all competing ferociously with each other for immigrants has reached its peak, and would expect a number of countries - especially in Europe - to curtail their intake considerably over the next decade or two.

It's interesting in that Canadian immigration politics have a major "blue state" component but Canada's immigration policy has diverged a lot from the US over the past couple of years. Basically in this area a lot of Canadians and Americans say the same things and support politicians who implement very different policies.

Personally I think the idea that countries need growing populations to be successful is highly overrated and so is the crisis of ageing populations (while productivity growth is underrated). Is it even clear the ageing outweighs the gains in health at a given age and the shift toward lighter work more easily done by old people? If we had a 1920 economy then sure, we would not be able to send 70 year olds into the coal mines. Immigration can still be good of course if it leads to rising living standards for the bulk of society.

Another thing that has happened is more and more autonomy given to provinces with provincial nomination playing a big role in deciding who can come and retention in province generally tending upward.

Bring this together with the trends in Canadian politics and old governments (it's late in the cycle for the Liberals) and I don't think it's clear at all that the current JT-era policy or idea that Quebec must take its share will end up lasting all that long. It would be different if the Liberals were brand new and wildly popular everywhere but Quebec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Those "typical RoC" views you're reporting are frankly weird. It's obvious to everyone here in Quebec that what membership in Canada offers is a linguistic threat, not a buffer.

I suppose that in some ways the francophone hors-Québec communities where they are dominant as in Prescott-Russell (shakily, and only for the short term) and northern New Brunswick serve as a bit of a buffer.

Of course, there used to a be a lot more buffers even when I was a kid, such as large swathes of eastern Ottawa for example. Their geo-demographic retreat arguably proves the opposite point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's interesting in that Canadian immigration politics have a major "blue state" component but Canada's immigration policy has diverged a lot from the US over the past couple of years. Basically in this area a lot of Canadians and Americans say the same things and support politicians who implement very different policies.

Personally I think the idea that countries need growing populations to be successful is highly overrated and so is the crisis of ageing populations (while productivity growth is underrated). Is it even clear the ageing outweighs the gains in health at a given age and the shift toward lighter work more easily done by old people? If we had a 1920 economy then sure, we would not be able to send 70 year olds into the coal mines. Immigration can still be good of course if it leads to rising living standards for the bulk of society.

Another thing that has happened is more and more autonomy given to provinces with provincial nomination playing a big role in deciding who can come and retention in province generally tending upward.

Bring this together with the trends in Canadian politics and old governments (it's late in the cycle for the Liberals) and I don't think it's clear at all that the current JT-era policy or idea that Quebec must take its share will end up lasting all that long. It would be different if the Liberals were brand new and wildly popular everywhere but Quebec.

I think the more lucid among us can see the writing on the wall globally when it comes to this issue, but even so "Canada" will almost certainly be the last man standing on this one among western countries.